Forum posts made by elitfromnorth

It has now been a bit over 2 years since US special forces eliminated Osama bin Laden. The mastermind behind amongst others the embassy bombing and 9/11 is dead, but the question I wonder is; do you feel safer knowing that Osama bin Laden is dead?

Me, I don't at all. Not that I really feel like I'm in constant danger, however I can't say that I feel safer just because one dude is dead. Here's my arguments why: As they said on another documentary the last years of his life he hasn't really been that important to Al-Qaida in regards to the planning process. He has been the great leader and face outwards to the rest of the world, but just like the Queen of England he's had no real power other than a moral booster for his own troops.

Secondly, Al-Qaida isn't like a regular army when it comes to chain of command. It's mostly a group of splinter cells under one umbrella that gives them most of the funding and training, but they don't pick when and where the groups strike. Add to the fact that these cells are more than capable of functioning on their own.

Third, to be sucsessful a terrorist group doesn't have to make a new 9/11 scale bombing. Go into a mall, set off the bomb, make sure the Al-Qaida name is on it and you'll have people terrified for months. That's their goal, to make civilians scared, and they don't need a clear chain of command to do so.

Most certainly not. I like my family members too much(ok, most of them) and those I don't like I'd never hang around long enough to get the chance to screw their partner. If I wanted to hurt them that badly I'd find other and cleaner ways to show who's boss

I don't get why Russia are making such a big deal about the Azerbaijan cock-up. For gawd's sake, it's just a competition!

Thing is, Azerbaijan needs to be on Russia's good side. Who else is going to be willing to support a dictatorship with as much free press as China? If they lose the support of Russia then they're pretty much fucked. That's why this is a big deal. Eurovision isn't "just a competition" for many nations, it also has a lot to do with politics, especially in a country where the government(read: dictatorship) runs the national stations.

That said, nothing Eurovision has produced will ever be able to compare itself with Epic Sax Guy

I read somewhere(think it was Wall Street Journal or something) that Yahoo had a new CEO that was now a purchase spree in an attempt to make the revenue go up for once. Apparantly she was a bit more sensible than previous ones, since she saw what was a necessity to make money. I don't use it that much, but I do believe that there might be "hope in a hanging snore" in this matter.

I find it hard to believe that they would destroy clothing rather than give it to the homeless. From a purely pragmatic point of view, that's just stupid. Why not donate them to the Salvation Army, or some other charity and write them off their taxes?

On the other hand, this does seem very typical of the hatred that a lot of people seem to have for the poor these days.

It's not about the whole "Hatred for poor people", it's simply bad for business. They're not trying to be one of the lower end types, they want to appeal to the rich and those with a lot of money to spend on clothes. If the upper middle class is your target group, and the vain ones in this class as well, then having homeless people wear the same brand isn't good for business. After all, can you imagine watching a 17 yo cheerleader stereotype wearing the same jeans as a homeless woman?

The only way you can get away with being in the top of the foodchain of the market(i.e. not being percieved as a walmart manufacturer, but something cool and top of the line) you can't have "fat" people wearing your stuff. "Fat" people are the normal ones, and you don't want the image that "normal" people wear your clothes. It's the cool and trendy people, the type that everyone wants to be like. So, in turn other people will buy the same brand of stuff to be part of this group of cool people.

It is by far cynicism and exclusion on it's best, but that's just how it is. I've noticed it a lot around here too. Unless I go to one of the typical "suit" stores, I'll rarely find jeans in my size. I wouldn't say that 42" waist is really that big. It's more due to the fact that I'm so bloody tall, yet I'm sent to the "freak" department. I don't really care. Usually the people at that shop are more helpful, friendly and know their stuff better than the chick working at the top notch shops selling the top brands.

But this is capitalism for you. Capitalism cares only about the money and because of that has no problem considering people with certain characaristics as undesirable. In most cases it's "fat" people.

I feel no sympathy for you at all. Not one bit. Over here you blow a red light just from having a two of those chocolate balls that have a hint of cognac in them. You're not allowed to drink anything and then get behind a wheel. Complete sobriety is the rule. People driving with alcohol in their blood immediately gets affected, even if it's just a little bit. One drink is enough, let alone two. I don't know the penalties for being a drunk driver in the US, but with a blood alcohol level of .08 you'll get 1 1/2 of your monthly wage in fine, a suspended sentence and have your licence revoked for at least one year.

And I really feel sorry for you if you can't go out and have a dinner with someone and not having to drink. Hell, if you have one glass of wine to the meal you can still drive legally!

And what will the result of this be? Less deaths. Thing is that very often those that are involved in accidents with alcohol in their blood not only injure themselves, but also others. One thing is swirling off the road and hitting a tree or a lamppost, but what about hitting another car or a pedestrian?

Or does it say somewhere in the constitution that you're allowed a certain amount of drinks before you get behind the wheel of a car?

First sentence that comes to mind is "You did it yourself". Allowing media to hype the vulnerabilities of society and actually voting for people who will go for this shit and believing it has already made you into a rather restricted country. All the Bush administration had to do was say "This law will help prevent terrorism" and suddenly everyone was for it. In the interest of "national security". Maybe if you stopped believing the media hype and actually were more critical about some actions of your elected officials you wouldn't be in this mess. You spend too much time wailing and crying over what is essentially not that big a deal, and things like this gets passed in silence.

Why isn't the opposition(republicans) yelling out against this? Aren't they the ones constantly bitching about how liberties are being removed and so forth? Or is this maybe just their way of building a smoke screen? People rage over anything that even relates to the 2nd ammendment, and in the meantime, the senate and the congress do what they want, because you're too preoccupied with believing that taking away some guns and restricting who gets them is an infringement on your rights, when in reality the ruckus they cause is just a smokescreen to keep people busy. If republicans are so against a strong federal government, why isn't there a strong republican front against this issue?

Will you be able to cope with it? Will you be able to detach yourself emotionally and not fall in love with a fuckbuddy? Will you manage to keep the attraction to being physical only? Should you start developing feelings for the fuckbuddy, are you 100% sure you could break it off?

Ask yourself those questions and see what you come up with. Usually in these situations it's more of asking the right questions than just wondering "should I do it or not".

Also, make sure you use a condom or have your regular fuckbuddy tested. Last thing you wanna do is contract something nasty that you send on to your husband.

I don't know what to say about the child molester, but the story about the kidnapped journalist was likely kept quiet because of negotiations that were going on to get him released. Most governments say that they will not negotiate with terrorists, but do when they have to, only under the radar or through intermediaries. This is why nothing appears in the media.

The story about the molestation would likely have become public in most countries with a free press. I wonder why it did not happen there. Even if his colleagues did not report it, one would imagine competitors would.

That's the thing. In other kidnapping events where there have been ongoing negotiations the story will break as soon as some fucktard leaks it to the press. It has happened before, and it will happen again. As for the child molester, a quick google search found several blogs talking about it, but the media was dead silent. All of them. And we do have free press. Hell, the press here is so tabloid that real news stories don't even get mentioned, it's all about the sex scandals.

Not too long ago one of the football/soccer pundits("experts" sitting in the studio) working for a Norwegian channel had stopped appearing. According to the channel he had "moved on to new and other challenges", which usually implies he got a new job. Matter of fact was, he had fondled his underage niece and got sentenced to prison for 9 months. He pretty much was a celeb, having played on the national team, but since he worked for the media, no mention. If it had been a "regular" celeb they probably would have made it first page.

Another case was a Norwegian journalist that was kidnapped in Afghanistan. Can't remember the details of how he was released, but there was nothing until after his safe release that anything was posted in the media.

This thread is not about molesting or kidnapping, I'm wondering if it's the same way in other countries; that journalists have each other's back, so to speak. Unwritten rule that if something bad happens to a journalist it's not to be spoken of unless everything ends up ok or if the individual decides to go public on his own. It's like there's a different set of rules for the journalists, of what can and can't be mentioned. Everyone that's not a journalist is free game. Is it like that in other countries too?

This makes me even more suspicious of Lerner. Wouldn't someone who was on the up-and-up have stood by her math, instead of just agreeing with her naysayers, and hoping everything will just blow over?

Sarcasm? "Oh, I'm a manager for the IRS, but I'm really really shite at math." Doubt you get anywhere in a top level position unless you have some knowledge of math, since you have to be able to read budgets and shit...

Would it be too much to request that the IRS devote 100% of their attentions to the Fortune 1000 corporations who are actively dodging as much taxation as they can by offshoring their head quarters and taking advantage of every loophole they can bribe the Congress to create for their behalf?

You've kinda answered your own question there. They can't go after the fortune 1000 corporations because thanks to the congress creating loopholes they are, legally, not doing anything wrong. Thing is that big companies like that has a problem if they break the law to such a degree that the government comes with a billion dollar tax claim on their arses. So instead, they spend ten million or so on accountants that are good at using the loopholes in existence to get off cheap like that.

First close the loopholes, THEN put the IRS on their arses. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to go after them if they have the law on their side, which they currently, don't.

- From the excert in Nudiepants post it says that 75 out of the 300 were conservative groups. Meaning not all of them were conservatives, actually just a quarter were conservatie groups.- This was not sanctioned by managers or a policy put in place, it was individuals, meaning for all we know it could be people with their own views making it harder for people they didn't like.

So once again the right wing cries "The IRS are after us!" when it's merely a few out of the many many people working in the IRS that abused their authority. Not everything HAS to be a big government conspiracy, it could just be a few fucktards in the same workplace, but there's paranoia for you.

If I'm not mistaken I read somewhere that by making it available for people outside the US he broke some kind of arms trade act thingamagjing, so basically they took down a site that broke the law. If you ship out a weapon in pieces to one guy, you're still shipping out a weapon since he already have all the parts. Shame they were too late to stop him.

Why wouldn't the IRS flag organizations with the names, "Tea Party," or "Patriot," in their applications for tax exempt status. Both of these are names often used in political organizations, some tax exempt groups are prohibited from participating in politics if they are to maintain their tax exempt status. What were the other groups flagged? Were they political groups as well? There really isn't enough information here to make a case that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. Who were the other 225 groups that weren't conservative? Try to provide more facts.

I agree with this. What about the other 225 that weren't conservative groups? Did they have names like "Obama" or "Democratic" in their applications? Or is this another right wing martyrism? What's worse is how for instance the company that delivered the voting machines had a big "We support Bush" banner on their website, or how several African Americans weren't listed as voters during the 2004 and 2008 elections because they traditionally vote for the Democrats. THAT is a real threat, not just the IRS having an extra good look at a large amount of groups were "inappropriately flagged" and some of them happened to be conservative...

You had to come creeping up on me like some nasty little STD, you mangy little cunt. I hope that one day they'll manage to manifest you into a human and you get tortured in so many ways that God will weep over you. So as an early Christmas present from me to you, here's a nice and proper FUCK YOU!

It would be really interesting to see for instance my SO give a description like this, just to see how different we look at the one person. More like how she sees herself. Honestly, I think it could also help people get a better understanding of others. After all, how we percieve ourselves affect us a lot.

"I'm assuming you're referring to this bit." Nope, that's not it. I have included in my post with "case in point" the actual event. Anyone there at that time that can remember that thread, and its progression, will note the fault.

If you read it again then you'll see that was meant to She, and not you :)

And for the rest of you, I think it's time we leave this matter now until we hear from the Big Boss(ette?).